Talk of the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state has continued so consistently that it now constitutes an ever-present low hum in the background of any discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.”

President Obama is reportedly agreeing to veto such a move only if Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees to a new settlement freeze.

While such a declaration–which would come through a vote at the U.N. Security Council–would be unpleasant for both Israel and the Palestinians, it would also, for the following reasons, be regretted immediately and intensely by the West–including the Europeans, who have allowed us to get to this point in the first place.

1. The West will be forever tied to what comes out of this new state. In August 2007, then-presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani went on record against the creation of a Palestinian state. “It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism,” he said.

This remains as true today as it was three years ago. A Palestinian state under current conditions would almost immediately be a failed state, exporting terrorism around the region and the world. And within its borders, we can expect ethnic cleansing–and won’t be able to plead ignorance. Just this week, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar became the latest Palestinian leader to threaten that Palestinian land will soon be rid of its Jews. In September, the Palestinian Authority “reaffirmed” the death penalty for selling land to Jews. This says nothing of the persecution of Christians by Palestinian Muslims, even in places like Bethlehem.

Can the West stomach facilitating the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Jews from Palestine? If they allow the creation of a Palestinian state, they better be prepared for it.

2. The fallout with our Arab allies. Imperfect as they may be, we have Arab allies in the Mideast too, at a time when we are fighting two wars in the region. The establishment of a Palestinian state right now will create a base from which terrorists will target neighboring Jordan, whose population contains almost 2 million Palestinians and has historically had its own internal Palestinian terrorism to worry about. Jordan is also Israel’s best Arab ally.

It’s not just Jordan, of course. The Arab states in the region don’t want the establishment of a Palestinian state for two main reasons: first, it would destroy the only means by which their Arab citizens can vent frustration and anger. Take away that vent and the heat builds up to a boil. Arab autocrats need a “Palestinian issue” at which their subjects can aim their discontent.

Second, the more moderate Fatah party leadership is not nearly strong enough to stave off Hamas and their fellow Islamists from seizing control. Egypt’s leadership does not want a neighbor run by an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. And none of the Arab states has any desire to write checks to a fledgling Arab state–something they may not do anyway, but they certainly don’t want the added pressure of having to serve as a foster parent to the new Palestine.

3. The expansion of the Iranian sphere of influence. With Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Syria, not to mention Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank respectively, a new Palestinian state would serve to effectively put Iran on three of Israel’s four borders (four of five if you count Gaza).

As we’ve posted here, a study of Palestinian social media found no real criticism of Iran’s funding or other involvement in Palestinian society. That influence would only expand if the Palestinians suddenly had control over sovereign borders.

4. The ratcheting up of Israeli-Palestinian violence. Palestinian terrorism and Israeli counterterrorism would be elevated to state on state warfare. An open war between a new Arab state and Israel is a recipe for disaster, not least because of all the variables: What would Syria’s reaction be? Would Israel be forced to occupy what is now sovereign Palestinian territory? If so, what would the reaction be from the U.S. or from Europe or from the U.N.? What other fronts will open up? Will American weapons be used by Palestinian soldiers against Israel? What would Iran’s participation be?

At this juncture, there is no chance the new Palestinian state will eschew violence. There is also no chance Israeli leaders will allow their citizens to be attacked. Instant war in the Middle East would be, therefore, an almost certainty upon the establishment of Palestine.

5. The collapse of Western credibility and American policy in the Mideast. While many would welcome the end of the “peace process,” the establishment of the Palestinian state would be such a disaster that–in part because of the mess it would make and in part because of the unilateral nature of its founding–it would destroy American credibility for involvement in the region.

The U.S. cannot afford for its one complete act in the Middle East to be the creation of a violent failed state. The American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are far too important, complex, and precarious to be tossed away by a petulant Mahmoud Abbas and a guilt ridden, enabling Western Europe.

On Sunday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the discussion of unilateral declaration is “not helpful.” The U.S. would be better off finding a way to end such discussion before it provokes a confrontation at the Security Council from which will emerge no winners, especially if the president has yet to unconditionally guarantee an American veto.